Mder's
Thank your for the responses to my rhetoric in this thread. To David B, a
special thanks for responding when he had every right not too. Platt thanks
for the help, whether you know it or not.
OK, Let's start with Platt who sums it up succinctly.
> Pirsig is the only philosopher to write a metaphysics based on the initial
> assumption that the world consists solely of patterns of moral values plus
> a creative force called Dynamic Quality,
I agree with the statement and think Ken deletion of "dynamic" improves.
> "the world consists solely of patterns of moral values driven by a creative
force called Quality."
Along with Ken, "dynamic" jumped out at me, but the other was "moral values"
IMHO these are the two principle issues that underlie all our discussions
And when Ken says, "the application of Dynamic Quality to these narrow [human]
concerns to the detriment of an overall view of the biosphere and the Universe
as a whole, I agree. I would add that the same could be said by about "moral
values"
These can, in general, be summed up by the following quotes from Lila.
********
"The Metaphysics of Quality says there are not just two codes or morals, there
are actually five: inorganic-chaotic, biological-inorganic, social-biological,
intellectual-social, and Dynamic-static."
“..although the ... systems are exhaustive they are not exclusive. They all
operate at the same time and in ways that are almost independent of each
other.” .... It says they are not continuous. They are discreet. They have
very little to do with one another. Although each higher level is built on a
lower one it is not an extension of that lover level. Quite the contrary. The
higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level,
dominating it , controlling it where possible for its own purposes. ”
‘It says, first of all, that “amoral objective matter” is a low-grade form of
morality. and “there is not just one moral system. There are many. ...there’s
the morality called the “laws of nature,” by which inorganic patterns triumph
over chaos; there is a morality called the “laws of the jungle” where biology
triumphs over the inorganic forces of starvation and death; there’s a morality
where social patterns triumph over biology, “the law”; and there is
intellectual morality, which is still struggling in its attempts to control
society.”
"In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other things
being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a higher level of
evolution, is more moral."
************
Thus under the MoQ everything from the molecule to man is controled,
regulated, subject to, influenced, consists, or just plain is "moral values."
And the highest moral authority in the universe is "dynamic moral values" Now
if we focus on "the narrow concentration on human concerns" these "dynamic
moral values" are beyond the realm of, and morally superior to the intellect.
So somewhere outside of the highest human static patterns of values, the
intellect, intellectually unknown and unknowable, lies the realm of supreme
moral authority. If this sounds familiar, it should because this is and
always has been the claim of religions. But we can find many quotes in which
Pirig indicates he is not a big fan of religions. However on closer inspection
one can find, as David B has fervently maintained, this objection is to
"organized religions" the religions of "the priests" not to the experiences of
the brujo, shaman, or mystic whether that experience is obtained through
ritualistic practices or the "force-fed mystic understanding" of drugs.
So it would seem that the search in the focus group for the "5th level" is
misguided inasmuch as somewhere just beyond normal mortal intellect lies the
realm of unpatterned dynamic moral values which has the moral authority to
dominant our existence. And this realm is accessible to any individual, as
mystics have clearly and unequivocally demonstrated throughout human history,
though either or both "clear mind" or "drugged mind" practices.
Returning to the deciding quote on moral authority lets apply these insights
to a historic real world event.
"In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other things
being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a higher level of
evolution, is more moral."
After all the moral arguments between the four levels have been waged and
assuming they are deadlocked -equal- under the MoQ the highest moral authority
to decide an issue is dynamic quality accessible though mystic experience. If
it is up to an individual to make the choice; How should it be done? Truman
should have either consulted a mystic or somehow induced in himself a mystical
experience by ritual practice or drugs prior to making the decision to drop
the bomb on Hiroshima and made his decision based on that experience. Then,
whatever the decision, it would have then been unquestionable; inasmuch as it
was the most dynamic, at the highest level of authority, and consequently the
most moral decision available to any mortal.
But wait, this decision is just too big, too monumental, the consequences too
far reaching to leave to a single individual. So the President and nineteen of
his top advisors stuggle with "the drop the bomb question" and are deadlocked
at a 10/10 tie but a decision must be made. The law, now modified per the
dominance of MoQ, says that in these situations, if one is not a practicing
mystic, they must drop acid and then revote. They do, the vote is 11/9 for.
This would be without question the most dynamic, morally superior decision
humankind could have made and absolutely the best method to arrive at it?
First God, then Putnam, long live the brujos.
DLT
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:13 BST